Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: KonKilo who wrote (27165)	8/25/2006 1:34:57 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541929

I certainly consider the administrations actions less extreme than you do, but I didn't call them moderate. I called them relatively moderate, in the context of the comparison between the "war on drugs" and "the war on terror" that amounts to something like "more moderate than some of the actions committed as part of the war on drugs". Even though they aren't that relevant to what I actually said I'll deal with your specific points anyway. "Absolute power for the POTUS" Hasn't happened. "Limitless surveillance w/o Congressional oversight" Hasn't happened at least as official policy. Intercepting the communications of an enemy during a conflict isn't "limitless surveillance". Disregarding habeas corpus Enemies captured in war can be held for the duration. Doing so isn't disregarding habeas corpus, esp, if the enemies are not Americans, are not captured in America, and are not held in America. But we did hold POWs in WWII in America. You don't have to put captured enemy through criminal trials, and in fact doing so is generally very unrealistic. One American citizen was captured and was held in America. It can be argued that the Padilla case represents heading in the direction of "Disregarding habeas corpus", but it doesn't actually amount to a policy of "disregarding habeas corpus". Truly "disregarding habeas corpus" would be something like preventing the petition for habeas corpus from being submitted, or ignoring a final order (after all appeals are exhausted) to release the prisoner under habeas corpus. "Torture as policy" - Depends on exactly how you define torture, but people forced to stand in difficult positions might consider themselves to have been tortured, and people subject to "water boarding" are as well. This is legitimately a highly controversial action. But I don't have to endorse or support it to consider waterboarding Khalid Sheik Mohammed to be less extreme than locking up a million people on drug charges.